[leps-talk] Why aren't Mexico's overwintering monarchs in the news yet this winter?

[Johnson, Kurt]

re Mark's comments-- the same people appear regarding the Monarch for
several reasons-- (1) those who historically did the research; (2) those who
historically are considered the specialists both by the scientific and
conservation communities; (3) more importantly, that Brower was selected by
WWF as its scientific advisor for working out the earlier and present
Mexican protocols; (4) Taylor had the organization in place that tracked the
migrations; etc. (5) they have crops of graduate students who have followed
in their footsteps etc.   Now the only reason we get the present "mix" of
players and protocols is that these elements formed up over time as what led
to the protocols eventually adopted by the Mexican govt. (in several stages,
of course).  Yes, some personal input by these persons (selfish or selfless
doesn't seem to matter at that point) was involved, since they were
following their professional expertises and those who looked to them for
that were asking them for it (just as surgeons in the medical profession
would be on this or that board to review a new protocol or procedure etc.,
for the comfort both of the medical and/or insurance, consumer organizations
etc.).  So, it results from "process".  Also, the available research out
there also results from "process" and I don't find it all that compelling an
argument to insist or infer that this long history of research (REALLY long)
is necessarily wrong (flawed here and there, no doubt, as all research is
etc. but not necessarily wrong; after all, there are MANY in the Mexican
govt., interested in local profit from logging that would have been very
happy for it to be wrong etc....then they may have won the day).  I suppose
the only way to go "backwards" and have people who believe the conclusions
are wrong is for them to repeat the research process and initiate a research
process.  Now this can happen.  A good example is that the conservationists
whose staked out the Albany reserves for the Karner Blue stated in their
original research that "5000 acres" was enough to protect the species.  That
turned out not to be true BUT the people fighting now in the courts to suck
up the land around the preserve for commercial use (and who have far more
money than the environmentalists) are holding them in their court papers to
"you said 5000 and you have 5000, so unless you go back and do all the
research over, we're arguing you are stuck with 5000, whether the goddamned
bug goes extinct or not".  Now, with the Mexican protocols I suppose the
other alternative is for people to go through the whole process, with the
Mexican govt. and their chosen partner in the international community (WWF)
and convince them  that these protocols are based on faulty science.  I
suppose part of the basis argument here is on some a priori assumptions-- it
might be argued that WWF et al are argumeing a priori that loss of virgin
forest inevitably means loss of overwintering habitat; others are arguing a
priori that there is no such connection.  Also I suppose there is some a
posteriori stuff in there too but I don't have time to go on about it.  I
think the general argument against the present protocols has to do, however,
with an a priori notion that the WWF et al. position is "Chicken Little"
etc.  I think environmentalists usually want to error on the side of caution
AND, if the present protocols are compensating the locals AND providing
alternative sources of lumber, what is the economic beef?  Anyway.... the
Monarch will not go extinct; its just a question of whether the eastern
flyway will disappear or become pathetically small...  or whether that makes
any difference.  Others who want "progress" would all rather see it as a
parking lot anyway, I suppose-- these things are always decided by "process"
and the polarity of factions at those polarities arguing vehemently.
Luckily I guess in this country we do it generally peacefully...

KURT
Dr. Kurt Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Walker [mailto:MWalker at gensym.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:29 PM
To: 'Michael Gochfeld'; Johnson, Kurt
Cc: Mark Walker; 'Paul Cherubini'; 'leps-l at lists.yale.edu';
'TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [leps-talk] Why aren't Mexico's overwintering monarchs in
the news yet this winter?


Michael Gochfeld wrote:

> 
> Well maybe if conservationists don't gain financially they gain from the
> sense of satisfaction and dedication, from being martyrs to a cause,
> however doomed it may seem at times.  Aren't those payoffs just as
> important as monetary reward and therefore shouldn't we doubt everything
> we hear and learn unless it has been provided by people who have no
> investment of any sort in anything at all.

Well, this seems awfully sarcastic and unnecessary; especially considering
how quick a similar doubt is raised when there is perceived gain on the
"other" side of these issues (dealers, breeders, wedding releasers,
pesticide salesmen, etc.).  Again, incredible double standards at work here.

As for the specific sarcasm here - sorry, but I don't automatically consider
all involved in "conservation" activities to be selfless altruists worthy of
praise and admiration.  What little I do know about this Monarch situation
is that it's the same people's names that keep appearing in print.  Yes,
that may be because they are the most selfless individuals on the planet -
but it is also likely that it's because they are heavy into self-promotion.
I know Bob Parcelles can appreciate this - as I'm sure his team of folks are
doing everything they can to get media attention.

Perhaps Mr. Brower and Dr. Taylor truly believe they are voices in the
wilderness on behalf of Monarch doom and gloom.  I suspect that they will
nevertheless defend that position vehemently even if it is questioned by
sound scientific evidence to the contrary.

Monarch overwintering sites should be monitored based solely on density and
lack of frequency.  Information on large scale mortality due to weather is
important - but I fail to see it's significance relative to human impact.
One could argue that nothing should be done to prevent impact due to
"natural" causes.  Of course, the correlation that severe weather in Mexico
is somehow related to the Greenhouse Effect will likely be forthcoming...

Mark Walker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020213/8a4177ae/attachment.html